John Freestone, I just felt like warning you that there's a zero to none chance that Radrook will ever listen to any logical refutals, valid criticisms, or views that in any way clash with his wafer thin beliefs. I'll C&P what volatile said in another thread:
Silentknight, thanks for taking the trouble. That's interesting, that he's a JW, and not particularly surprising.
In other words, any exchange with a Jehovah's Witness would only be for the sake of any other people who may be following the discussion.
Yes, that was my motive: rather than to persuade him to overcome his religious indoctrination, it was for the sake of those who might right now be wondering whether to join this or that particular religion (at the time, not knowing what flavour of cristianity edge or radrook have). It was part of the ongoing discussion - resistance movement, you might say - of reason against superstition, which itself could be seen as futile and counter-productive. It's a difficult one, because beyond such religious differences, I have always supported pluralism (within certain limits of morality, I suppose), and would like everyone to get along and respect each other's views whatever they are, but on the other hand, I see so much damage being done by the general human failings of irrationality and superstition, adhering to false ideas because of their cultural heritage and individuals' fear to let go of them. Also, while an atheist, rationalist, materialist view could be another philosophy to oppress people with against their will, it seems much more innocent generally in this area: after all, it argues rationally and tries to persuade, on the whole, rather than saying what most religions say, that they are the truth because they are the truth and that's that (despite their number).
That's the nice thing, at least, about arguing with a Jehovah's Witness on a forum, that there are other people involved, at least in the reading of each side of the argument. Maybe I'm making up for all those missed opportunities when they came peddling at my door and I just politely turned them away. They always start with something like "Are you concerned about the way the world is going these days?", with a sorrowful frown that expects an affirmative. Well, actually, considering the general trend in health, politics and human capacities to understand and live in harmony with nature and survive, absolutely not. This general optimism (being a child of someone who almost died of tuberculosis before she had me, and growing up with the threat of a nuclear Third World War as almost inevitable) is balanced by a lot of fears for our future, since we are sold on unsustainable economic ideals and must be very likely to be hitting the 'limits to growth' long predicted, but we are also, thanks to reason and science, incredibly innovative. I suppose I'm hoping that the Enlightenment might eventually win out. As a British person, it's hard to get my head round how intensely the world is still in the grip of religious delusions, despite my own partner being a (relatively sensible and well-balanced) christian (we've agreed to disagree! - maybe I'm arguing here partly as a substitute, I don't know, anyway, I've digressed far enough already).
<snip> He has argued that he is the only one qualified to discuss scripture in any form, and if you ever dare to disagree with his infallible expertise, you deserve nothing more than to be subjected to verbal diarrhea.
Like I say, we've moved on over the centuries: at one time verbal diarrhea would be getting off very light! But I'm very fortunate, and people are still suffering badly all over the world at the hands of religion (and other political philosophies too, it has to be said).
On a completely unrelated note, I would probably feel more concerned about what religious fanatics who believe things like that would do if they were to ever act on their beliefs, if it weren't for the fact that they tend to be abject cowards at heart.
Unfortunately, they are still running plenty of the world, causing war after war after war, and it is
because cowards act. Bullies are generally fearful. They act out of fear, but do not have the courage to think new thoughts, to dare to have been wrong, and rarely learn.
I didn't say it was impossible. I was just meant it (my earlier thought experiment) wasn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. I suppose I should be more careful with my choice of words.
No, sorry: I should be more careful. You misunderstood me. I meant that certain other people had said certain things weren't going to happen (that, I think, you had suggested).
Thanks. I'm not expecting any profound/revolutionary ideas about the soul to emerge from a forum discussion, but does seems odd some people will post numerous vehement claims supporting the existence of an immortal soul, without being willing to state their views on the exact nature of the soul, or listen to other people's opinions.
I wonder if the profound, revolutionary ideas about the 'soul' (lack of) are already here, and its more about us discussing them and recognising their value. I have learned here from people who understood more about the science than I do and because, although I might have been rather resistant then, I thought about it and tested my own claims more, and came back more able to understand the difficult ideas and undermine my own superstitions.
I notice that Radrook, for example, hasn't responded to to my two previous posts.
C'est la vie. 
Forgive them, for they know not what they do.
I'm amazed that with all that super-Godly power you're still civil and apologetic about it. I'll start praying to you. Have you written a user guide?
